The League of Nations
One year ago, in August 2003, the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad, Iraq, was bombed. Twenty-two people were killed. They were in the country to help feed the Iraqi people, help replace the antiquated electrical and public utility systems, and help democracy take root. The UN honored their sacrifice, the cause for which they had given their lives, by fleeing the country. Some have argued that the United Nations should have been the primary foreign power in post-Saddam Iraq from the moment US forces took the capital. Ask yourself this question: had the UN been in charge, would they have stayed after the bombing? Or would they have fled, leaving the country without any government at all?

The United Nations is a good idea. The UN is even good at a great many things, like feeding refugees. (Internally displaced persons are another matter, but also something the UN was not set up to address.) But what the UN is not good at, and what the UN is not, is a nation-state. To paraphrase Stalin's famous remark about the Vatican, "How many divisions does the UN have?" There are things nation-states can do and things they UN can do. The United Nations is a place for nation-states to meet and (in theory) resolve international disputes, the UN is not a nation-state. Nor should it pretend to be a nation-state.

If the UN continues to insist that it should be accorded the same respect as a nation-state, one of two things will happen: either the UN will begin to act like a nation-state - and that is a messy, bloody business - or the proclamations from New York City will be as irrelevent and ridiculous as those from the now-defunct body in Geneva.

Vote For Kodos
Lemme see if I understand Senator Kerry's position: he is free to personally question President Bush's service in the Air National Guard, even though DOD records indicate that Mr. Bush satisfactorally fuflfilled his obligations and even though President Bush has not use that service as a pillar of his reelection campaign. Mr. Kerry can make his own service in the Navy a centerpiece of his bid for the presidency, but a group of private citizens operating in accordance with current election laws, cannot question his service, nor express their personal opinions on his post-service anti-war activities.

Thus, "I can attack you, but no one can attack me."

Democratic 527 groups, backed by millions of dollars from George Soros, may say everything under the sun about Mr. Bush, and that's kosher. But if Republican 527 groups, backed by a hundred thousand dollars from Bob Perry, say that Mr. Kerry's 1971 statements before Congress were personally offensive, well, clearly there must be a connection to the Bush campaign. All I'm saying is, why is Mr. Kerry so offended that a Republican group would atack him when he has been so silent about similar groups attacking Mr. Bush? President Bush has said that Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam was honorable; why has Senator Kerry not denounced those groups that equate President Bush with Adolf Hitler?

If anyone can explain this to me, please, I would like to understand: rebelblackdot@gmail.com

H-A-N
Have an illiterate night.